Overclock.net › Forums › Industry News › Video Game News › [EuroGamer] Face-Off: Rise of the Tomb Raider on PC
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

[EuroGamer] Face-Off: Rise of the Tomb Raider on PC - Page 5

post #41 of 666
Quote:
Originally Posted by Themisseble View Post

R9 380 vs GTX 980
GTX 780Ti vs R9 290/390

check it out.
what's that supposed to mean?
I looked at every test,even sweclockers which is the most favorable for AMD has 380 at the bottom and 980 at the top with huge fps difference. IDK what you're getting at.
Well,looking at those results I see you need 980 for 1080p,which is crazy. Also, Fury X disappoints as always,maybe even worse this time.
Edited by Klocek001 - 1/27/16 at 12:03pm
post #42 of 666
AMD really need to get their act together. Those Fury X results... doh.gif

There's no hyperbole in declaring it in the running for worst Radeon flagship ever, competing with the 2900XT. What the 980 Ti is doing in some of these games like ROTR isn't competition, it's a massacre.

Can't say I'm thrilled about the Kepler results either. Considering the following chart where Kepler starts falling apart:




There's a huge gap between the 2 GB and 4 GB 960 and here whereby only the 4 GB 960 is matching the 780. On lower settings (presumably including lower textures and therefore lesser VRAM demands), the 780 is way ahead. Looks like Kepler's relative lack of VRAM is at least partially responsible for these results. Maybe ROP throughput, too?
Edited by Serandur - 1/27/16 at 12:12pm
Ice-nine
(17 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7-6700K Asus Z170-DELUXE Gigabyte G1 GTX 980 Ti Corsair Vengeance LPX DDR4 3000 
Hard DriveHard DriveOptical DriveCooling
Samsung 850 Evo 500 GB Seagate Barracuda 7200 RPM 2 TB Asus DVD Drive DRW-24B1ST/BLK/B/AS Phanteks PH-TC14PE 
OSMonitorKeyboardPower
Windows 8.1 Pro AOC Q2770PQU Corsair K95 RGB - Cherry MX Blue EVGA Supernova G2 750W 
CaseMouseMouse PadAudio
NZXT Phantom 410 Gunmetal Edition Logitech G502 Proteus Core Razer Goliathus Speed Edition Small Cyber Acoustics Satellite CA-3602 
Audio
Oppo PM-3 Closed Back Planar Magnetic Headphones 
  hide details  
Reply
Ice-nine
(17 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7-6700K Asus Z170-DELUXE Gigabyte G1 GTX 980 Ti Corsair Vengeance LPX DDR4 3000 
Hard DriveHard DriveOptical DriveCooling
Samsung 850 Evo 500 GB Seagate Barracuda 7200 RPM 2 TB Asus DVD Drive DRW-24B1ST/BLK/B/AS Phanteks PH-TC14PE 
OSMonitorKeyboardPower
Windows 8.1 Pro AOC Q2770PQU Corsair K95 RGB - Cherry MX Blue EVGA Supernova G2 750W 
CaseMouseMouse PadAudio
NZXT Phantom 410 Gunmetal Edition Logitech G502 Proteus Core Razer Goliathus Speed Edition Small Cyber Acoustics Satellite CA-3602 
Audio
Oppo PM-3 Closed Back Planar Magnetic Headphones 
  hide details  
Reply
post #43 of 666
Quote:
Originally Posted by Klocek001 View Post

what's that supposed to mean?
I looked at every test,even sweclockers which is the most favorable for AMD has 380 at the bottom and 980 at the top with huge fps difference. IDK what you're getting at.
Well,looking at those results I see you need 980 for 1080p,which is crazy. Also, Fury X disappoints as always,maybe even worse this time.

I am trying to tell that from what I heard game doesnt run smooth. We will need to patch and drivers. While NVIDIA already did that ...
post #44 of 666
Quote:
Originally Posted by Serandur View Post

AMD really need to get their act together. Those Fury X results... doh.gif

There's no hyperbole in declaring it in the running for worst Radeon flagship ever, competing with the 2900XT. What the 980 Ti is doing in some of these games like ROTR isn't competition, it's a massacre.

Can't say I'm thrilled about the Kepler results either.
well there must be sth wrong going on with Fury X alone, 390s look pretty good in comparison to 970. ROTR isn't the only example of Fury X performance being just stuck at some point. 1080p and 1440p results are pretty much the same for this card according to sweclockers, I wonder if 60 fps is even possible on this card at any resolution or is it just stuck at 48 fps.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Themisseble View Post

I am trying to tell that from what I heard game doesnt run smooth. We will need to patch and drivers. While NVIDIA already did that ...
heard from where? what did nvidia do? patched the game for their cards?
No wonder the game doesn't run smooth, the only card that is capable of 60 fps is 980T/TX.
Edited by Klocek001 - 1/27/16 at 12:10pm
post #45 of 666
Quote:
Originally Posted by Klocek001 View Post

well there must be sth wrong going on with Fury X alone, 390s look pretty good in comparison to 970. ROTR isn't the only example of Fury X performance being just stuck at some point. 1080p and 1440p results are pretty much the same for this card according to sweclockers, I wonder if 60 fps is even possible on this card at any resolution or is it just stuck at 48 fps.
heard from where? what did nvidia do? patched the game for their cards?

http://www.pcworld.com/article/3026964/software/rise-of-the-tomb-raider-pc-review-impressions-gorgeous-game-ugly-stutter.html
http://wccftech.com/nvidia-geforce-driver-36175-whql-optimized-rise-tomb-raider-division-beta/
post #46 of 666
Quote:
Originally Posted by Klocek001 View Post

what's that supposed to mean?
I looked at every test,even sweclockers which is the most favorable for AMD has 380 at the bottom and 980 at the top with huge fps difference. IDK what you're getting at.
Well,looking at those results I see you need 980 for 1080p,which is crazy. Also, Fury X disappoints as always,maybe even worse this time.

Isn't that the truth, given the similarity between 390x results and Fury/x I really hope AMD doesnt make the same mistake with the front end of Polaris. New and hopefully improved uArch, without limiting ROPs, could be interesting. Fury is obviously not able to leverage the extra shaders well in this title at all.

Maybe drivers will help, not making an excuse for AMD, but they could definitely level the field a bit more than we see now.
 
Fat HTPC
(9 items)
 
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
2700k Asrock Z77 extreme 4 Sapphire HD 7950 Boost 8 GB gskill ripX 
Hard DriveHard DriveOptical DriveCooling
Samsung F3 WD 500 Blue ASUS 212+ 
OSMonitorMonitorKeyboard
Win7 x64 Prof ASUS AS248H-P LG 21.5 1080p Keys of Boardness 
PowerCaseMouseAudio
XFX 750W XXX Antec 300, fanned out! Death Adder Klipsch Promedia 2.1 
AudioAudio
Xonar Dg Superlux HD 668B 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Phenom II 955 ASUS M4A785T-M XFX HD 5670 1 GB Crucial Ballistix 2x2 GB 
Hard DriveCoolingOSPower
WD 500 Green Hyper 212+  Win 7 x64 Prof antec earthwatts 650 
Case
NZXT source 210 
  hide details  
Reply
 
Fat HTPC
(9 items)
 
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
2700k Asrock Z77 extreme 4 Sapphire HD 7950 Boost 8 GB gskill ripX 
Hard DriveHard DriveOptical DriveCooling
Samsung F3 WD 500 Blue ASUS 212+ 
OSMonitorMonitorKeyboard
Win7 x64 Prof ASUS AS248H-P LG 21.5 1080p Keys of Boardness 
PowerCaseMouseAudio
XFX 750W XXX Antec 300, fanned out! Death Adder Klipsch Promedia 2.1 
AudioAudio
Xonar Dg Superlux HD 668B 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Phenom II 955 ASUS M4A785T-M XFX HD 5670 1 GB Crucial Ballistix 2x2 GB 
Hard DriveCoolingOSPower
WD 500 Green Hyper 212+  Win 7 x64 Prof antec earthwatts 650 
Case
NZXT source 210 
  hide details  
Reply
post #47 of 666
"Nvidia is supposed to have a Game Ready Driver prepped for launch, but I haven’t been testing on it. " - from the "ugly stutter" review.
post #48 of 666
Quote:
Originally Posted by Biorganic View Post

Isn't that the truth, given the similarity between 390x results and Fury/x I really hope AMD doesnt make the same mistake with the front end of Polaris. New and hopefully improved uArch, without limiting ROPs, could be interesting. Fury is obviously not able to leverage the extra shaders well in this title at all.

Maybe drivers will help, not making an excuse for AMD, but they could definitely level the field a bit more than we see now.

Wait for the drivers. People acting like this is AMD game.
Same thing happened with FO4.
post #49 of 666
Quote:
Originally Posted by Klocek001 View Post

"Nvidia is supposed to have a Game Ready Driver prepped for launch, but I haven’t been testing on it. " - from the "ugly stutter" review.

Well that's a bit ridiculous. Sort of a joke really
 
Fat HTPC
(9 items)
 
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
2700k Asrock Z77 extreme 4 Sapphire HD 7950 Boost 8 GB gskill ripX 
Hard DriveHard DriveOptical DriveCooling
Samsung F3 WD 500 Blue ASUS 212+ 
OSMonitorMonitorKeyboard
Win7 x64 Prof ASUS AS248H-P LG 21.5 1080p Keys of Boardness 
PowerCaseMouseAudio
XFX 750W XXX Antec 300, fanned out! Death Adder Klipsch Promedia 2.1 
AudioAudio
Xonar Dg Superlux HD 668B 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Phenom II 955 ASUS M4A785T-M XFX HD 5670 1 GB Crucial Ballistix 2x2 GB 
Hard DriveCoolingOSPower
WD 500 Green Hyper 212+  Win 7 x64 Prof antec earthwatts 650 
Case
NZXT source 210 
  hide details  
Reply
 
Fat HTPC
(9 items)
 
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
2700k Asrock Z77 extreme 4 Sapphire HD 7950 Boost 8 GB gskill ripX 
Hard DriveHard DriveOptical DriveCooling
Samsung F3 WD 500 Blue ASUS 212+ 
OSMonitorMonitorKeyboard
Win7 x64 Prof ASUS AS248H-P LG 21.5 1080p Keys of Boardness 
PowerCaseMouseAudio
XFX 750W XXX Antec 300, fanned out! Death Adder Klipsch Promedia 2.1 
AudioAudio
Xonar Dg Superlux HD 668B 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Phenom II 955 ASUS M4A785T-M XFX HD 5670 1 GB Crucial Ballistix 2x2 GB 
Hard DriveCoolingOSPower
WD 500 Green Hyper 212+  Win 7 x64 Prof antec earthwatts 650 
Case
NZXT source 210 
  hide details  
Reply
post #50 of 666
Quote:
Originally Posted by Biorganic View Post

Well that's a bit ridiculous. Sort of a joke really
what joke?
I was just referring to the fact that themisseble suggested that the game stutters on the new nvidia driver,while amd hasn't yet produced one. what he didn't read is that they didn't use the game ready driver in this review.
Edited by Klocek001 - 1/27/16 at 12:20pm
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Video Game News
Overclock.net › Forums › Industry News › Video Game News › [EuroGamer] Face-Off: Rise of the Tomb Raider on PC